Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 07-16 PCP 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87008 Applicant: Maranatha Nursing Home Location: 5401 69th Avenue North Request: Rezoning This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its Nay 21, 1987 meeting. The applicant seeks rezoning from RI to R6 of the westerly 3.3 acres of the Maranatha Nursing Home site at 5401 69th Avenue North. The land in question is presently zoned R1 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by the nursing home on the east, by single-family homes on the south, and by a three-story apartment complex in Brooklyn Park on the west. The application was tabled at,the May 21, 1987 Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The advisory group meeting was poorly attended on June 2, L987 and minutes of the meeting are attached. Only two advisory group members attended. Delivery of notices to neighbors by the Post Office was late and so neighbors did not attend. The advisory group present voted in favor of the requested rezoning. Notices have again been sent for this meeting. The public hearing for the rezoning application has been continued to this meeting. Regarding the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings (Section 35-208, attached) , staff believe the guide-lines are met in this case. The proposal will provide additional housing for the elderly in the community, especially those in need of some special health care services. The R6 zoning is fairly compatible with surrounding land uses: the apartments to the west, the nursing home to the east and south, and the townhouses to the north. Although more intense than any of these land uses, the proposed use is not incompatible with any existing adjacent land use. Building the complex at the north end of the site provides the greatest buffer to the single-family residences to the south. The location, configuration and topography of the subject property is certainly not suited to single-family residential development under the current El zoning. The only other rational use of the property would be an expansion of the nursing home itself. The proposed housing development would be closely associated with the nursing home. There is no other vacant R6 zoned land in the community. The rezoning will meet a unique need within the community for housing with care services to the elderly. In general, therefore, staff recommend approval of the rezoning. Adoption of the attached resolution would be in order if the Planning Commission concurs. 7-16-87 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87010 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Location: 5401 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a four storey, 65 unit elderly housing apartment building on a 143,782 sq. ft. parcel of land immediately west of the nursing home at 5401 69th Avenue North. The land in question is proposed to be rezoned, to R6 and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north (with the Ponds townhouse development on the side opposite) , by the Maranatha nursing home on the east, by single-family homes on the south, and by a three-storey apartment complex in Brooklyn Park on the west. Four storey apartment buildings with ancillary services contained within are permitted uses in the R6 zoning district. The proposed apartment building will be attached to the existing nursing home at the property line. Access/Parking Access to the site is to be gained via a new driveway opposite Unity Avenue North off 69th Avenue North. That driveway divides into a driveway that goes to the main parking lot south of the building and another that runs past the main entrance of the building to the nursing home parking lot to the east. An existing access to the nursing home will be closed and relocated eastward. The site plan provides for 95 parking spaces to be installed at present (9 of which will be covered parking stalls) and 35 future spaces (7 of which wild be covered) . A 25' buffer will remain after construction of the future stalls. The total of 130 potential parking spaces equals the ordinance requirement of two per unit. Staff see no problem ;with a deferral of 35 spaces inasmuchas the project is geared toward elderly residents. A proof-of-parking covenant, however, will need to be filed with the plat at the County. Landscaping The landscape plan calls for numerous plantings totalling 512.5 points under the landscape point system. The points for shrubs exceed the maximum that can be credited. The total of points credited is 460.3 points. (Total points required is 277.5) • Of these, 230 are for shade trees, including 16 Red Maple, 3 Marshall's Seedless Ash, and 4 Littleleaf Lindens. Fifteen (15) coniferous trees are proposed, including 14 Black Hills Spruce. Nine ornamental trees are proposed, all Cockspur Hawthorn. The plan also calls for 348 shrubs, including 35 Redosier Dogwood, 38 Isanti Dogwood, 89 Dwarf Winged Enonymous, 32 Pfitzer Juniper, 37 Dwarf Korean Lilac, 44 Techney Arborvitae, and 31 Arrowood Vibernum. The plan also calls for saving a number of existing trees, including 11 that are 6" diameter or greater. This meets the ordinance requirement for 6" diameter trees. The plan calls for a 25' buffer strip adjacent to the single family residences to the south, even when future parking stalls are taken into account. A shrub row of 65 Dwarf Winged Euonymous is proposed south of the proof-of-parking area as a screening device as required by Section 35-410. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The front north of the site is proposed to drain to a drainage channel running along the south right-of-way line of 69th Avenue North at this location. The southerly portion of the site is to drain to a holding pond south and west of the 7-16-87 -1- Application No. 87010 continued building in the main green area on the site. These drainage areas will drain into a ditch running along the west edge of the site. That ditch flows under 69th into the watercourse that flows through the Island Ponds townhouses development and ultimately drains into Shingle Creek. The westerly portion of the site is designated as being within the 100 year flood plain. The 100 year flood elevation for this area was estimated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency at 863.5' . However, the City Engineer estimates that the 100 year flood elevation is actually 859.2' because the drainage in this area is back water to Shingle Creek which has a 100 year flood elevation at this stage of 859.0' . Drainage is to flow overland and through curb drops to the water retention areas rather than through storm sewer pipes. Storm sewer is proposed to carry water from the holding pond south of the building to the drainage ditch along the west side of the site. An easment for the ponding area south of the building is proposed on the preliminary plat (see Application No. 87011) . The drainage plan ;will be subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. j As far as site utilities are concerned, the plans submitted are incomplete. The plan calls for relocating an existing hydrant north of the nursing home which will serve the east side of the building off a 6" water line. Two additional hydrants are proposed northwest and south of the building off an 8" line that circles the building. Location of fire hydrants should be subject to approval of the Fire Chief. Staff recommend looping the water lines on the site which will require putting the 8" line through and under the building to link up with the existing 6" line. Sanitary sewer will connect to the City main in 69th Avenue North. Building The proposed building is to be located partially in an area presently designated as flood fringe by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) . As such, the lower storage area must be completely flood-proofed or the official map must be amended to relocate the flood fringe boundary. FEMA's preliminary floodway map showed a flood protection elevation of 864.5' (one foot above the estimated 100 year flood elevation) . This would exceed the proposed first floor elevation of the building which is proposed at 864.43' (the same as type existing nursing home) . A lower storage level is proposed at 856.43' which will be below the City Engineer's estimated 100 year flood elevation. If the flood plain map is amended, however, the building would be entirely outside the flood plain and would not have to be flood- proofed. The elevations of the building are proposed to be a combination of face brick and stucco with a slanting roof. The floor plan of the building shows nine "assisted living" or efficiency type units. Section 35-400 subsection la of the Zoning Ordinance allows for a density credit of 250 sq. ft. per efficiency unit, but also limits their number to 10% of the units in a given complex. In this case, only seven such units can be allowed. Finally, the building must be fire sprinklered and equipped with fire separation walls in order for the wood frame construction to be extended to four stories. Ancillary services will be available on the first floor such as a barber shop, craft room, and congregate dining. Lighting/Trash The applicant proposes two high pressure sodium (amber) parking lot lighting fixtures on 25' high poles on the south parking lot. In addition, 7 globe light fixtures are proposed around the building and adjacent to the proposed pond. Additional globe lights are proposed at building entrances and over the 9 garage stalls. Trash container storage is to be inside the building. { I 7-16-87 -2- I Application No. 87010 continued Recommendation Action on this application is dependent on the action taken on rezoning Application No. 87008. If the action on the rezoning is favorable, this application should only be approved subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5• The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 8. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property prior to the release of the performance guarantee. 9. Fire hydrants shall be provided on the site at locations to be approved by the Fire Chief. 10. The grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits. 11. Plan approval acknowledges the existence of 11 trees on the site greater than 6" in diameter. If these trees are removed or die as a result of construction, they shall be replaced with new trees at least 6" in diameter. 12. The plat of the property containing the parcel for this project shall receive final approval and be filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. The ponding area on the site shall be protected by an easement over the affected area. Said easement document shall be executed and filed with the title to the property at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 7-16-87 -3- Application No. 87010 continued 14. The applicant shall execute a covenant agreement to provide up to 35 additional parking stalls on the site upon a determination of need for such stalls by the City. Said covenant shall be filed with the title to the property at the County prior to the issuance of permits. 15. The plans shall be amended prior to the issuance of permits to indicate the following: a) Only 7 efficiency units rather than g is indicated on the plan submitted. b) Looping of the 8" watermain on the site with the existing 6" line. c) Screening provisions in the southerly buffer strip shall be clearly indicated. I I 7-16-87 -4- 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87011 Applicant: Maranatha Conservative Baptist Home Location: 5401 69th Avenue Norht Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the land which presently is occupied by the Faranatha Nursing Home at 5401 69th Avenue North. The land in question is presently zoned RI and is bounded by 69th Avenue North on the north, by single-family homes on the east and south, and by a three-storey apartment complex in Brookyn Park on the west. The westerly parcel of the subidivsion is proposed for rezoning to R6 for the construction of a four-storey, 65 unit apartment complex to be linked physically and operationally with the existing nursing home. Lot 1 of the proposed plat (Maranatha Addition) is to be 164,176 sq. ft. (3.77 acres) in area. It is the easterly lot of the subdivision containing the nursing home. At 50 beds per acre, which is the density limitation for nursing homes, this parcel could support 188 beds. The existing nursing home has just over 100 beds. Density is, therefore, not a problem with Lot 1. Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision is 143,682 sq. ft. (3.3 acres) in area. At 2200 sq. ft. per unit, which is the R6 density, 65 units may be built on Lot 2. If a density credit of 250 sq. ft. per efficiency unit is calculated for seven units, an additional unit could be constructed. The proposed plat dedicates 40 feet of right-of-way from the center line of 69th Avenue North (Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 130) . There is presently 3.3' of right-of-way dedicated over the easterly 105.9' of the north side lot line. In this area, the additional dedication is 7' . A 15' wide drainage and utility easement is proposed along the west property line and the westerly 393.9' of the south property line. The plat also proposes a ponding easement approximately ' 55' x 100' in the west central area of Lot 2 to protect the ponding area for the apartment development. The common property line dividing Lots 1 and 2 touches the northwest corner of the existing nursing home. Since the buildings will be attached at this point, this does not present a problem. There will have to be a fire separation constructed with one-hour fire wall and door at the connection point because of the presence of the property line. Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: I 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. i 3. Easement documents for drainage and utilities and ponding shall a be executed and filed with the plat at the County. 4, A cross access agreement between Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed subdivision shall be executed and filed with the plat at the County. 7-16-87 1 ' 1 - __ Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87012 Applicant: Bill Kelly House Location: 5240 Drew Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to operate a group care home for 23 mentally ill and chemically dependent adults at 5240 Drew Avenue North. The property presently has a 10 unit apartment on it which is to be converted to the group home use. It is zoned R5 and is bounded on the north by 53rd Avenue North, on the east by the Brookdale Ten apartment complex, on the south by a single-family residence, and on the west by Drew Avenue North. There are three duplexes on the opposite side of Drew Avenue North and single-family residences along the north side of 53rd Avenue North. Group care homes are allowed by special use permit in the R5 zoning district. Program The applicant has submitted a lengthy written explanation of the program (attached) to be operated at 5240 Drew Avenue North. The letter explains that the Bill Kelly House has been located in south Minneapolis at 2544 Pillsbury Avenue South for the past five years and has gained a favorable reputation as a provider of services to mentally ill adults who also have chemical abuse and dependency problems. The majority of clients are aged 20-50, unemployed, and varying in their level of functioning. The program design allows individualized objectives and expectations in order to accommodate a broad range of clients. In general, residents have established extensive psychiatric histories with multiple hospitalizations, chemical dependency treatments, and failures in numerous residential placements, but whose problem behaviors are not currently serious enough to require hospitalization. The overall goal of the program is to assist individuals to develop coping strategies that will maximize their independent functioning in the community and to reduce or eliminate behavior problems including chemical abuse. A number of services are provided to the residents to deal with the complexity of problems. The program provides 24-hour staff supervision of the facility and its residents. During the course of a week, a total of 15 staff persons will be employed at the site. In addition, a licensed consulting psychologist will provide weekly clinical supervision and case consultation while a psychiatrist serves as medical director, providing medical and psychiatric consultation. The facility also will contract with Hennepin County Medical Center for emergency care and crisis intervention services. Program costs are paid for by Hennepin County in cooperation with funding from the State of Minnesota. Room and board costs are provided through public assistance benefits and, in some cases, through private payments. The program is licensed through the Department of Human Services as a Rule 36 (mental health treatment) and Rule 35 facility (residential chemical dependency treatment) . It is also licensed by the Department of Health as a Supervised Living Facility. The facility is inspected annually to ensure compliance with codes, regulations and ethics. Building Modification The applicant proposes remodeling of the existing 10 unit apartment building. The basement would be converted to a kitchen, dining room, food storage and three staff offices. Laundry and storage space would also be located in the basement as well as a recreation room. On the first floor two apartments would be converted for office 7-16-87 -1- use and one apartment utilized as an apartment training space. There would also be a public reception area and a resident smoking lounge. On the second floor, all four apartments would be converted for resident bedroom use. For the entire facility, there would be 6 one person bedrooms and 9 double rooms. The maximum capacity would remain at 23 which provides for flexibility in assigning residents to rooms. Site Improvements The applicant proposes no change to the site. Currently parking lot provides space for 14 automobiles. On average, only 7 staff members would be utilizing the lot except during weekly staff meetings which require attendance of all staff of the facility. The applicant notes that only 11 of the staff presently use cars. We would point out that the parking plan for the site is irrational in that it shows 14 one-jay angle parking spaces deadending at the southeast portion of the property. The present lot is not wide enough (east to west) for 90 degree parking stalls and is not bound by curb and gutter. Staff recommend that the lot be widened from 39' 3" to 42' and that curb and gutter be provided around it. Also, the required 15' greenstrip must be provided as measured from the property line. The result of widening the parking lot, providing curb and gutter, and having 90 degree parking stalls would allow for 17 parking spaces to be provided in the same area of the parking lot. It should be noted that there is space available on the site to expand the parking lot to the south and also along the south side of the building in order to provide more than the 20 spaces required for a multi-family dwelling of 10 units. However, we do not believe that it is necessary at this time to expand the parking lot beyond 17 given the number of staff and the fact that we have been assured that residents will not have their own cars. A house van is provided to meet some of the clients transportation needs. A "proof-of-parking agreement" between the applicant and the City to provide additional on-site parking if the need is determined by the City should be a condition of approval. There is also a requirement for a minimum 4' high screening device adjacent to the single-family residences to the south. These improvements are consistent with what has been required of the Northwest Residence facility at 4408 69th Avenue North. Other Concerns The applicant states in his written submittal that the facility is committed to being a good neighbor, to establishing and maintaining open and responsive communications with neighbors, . To this end, the facility will be inviting neighborhood participation on the Advisory Committee of the facility which meets quarterly. The applicant has also arranged a meeting with the neighborhood at Northport School on July 8, 1987• The applicant notes that the Bill Kelly House is one of several community based programs operated by the Kelly-Norton Programs, Inc. and that all of the programs have established favorable reputations with their respective neighbors, residents, families of residents, service providers and the general public. Finally, the applicant notes that the Kelly House is on a month to month lease at their present location and that it is hoped that the program could occupy the premises at 5240 Drew AVenue North between October and December, 1987. 7-16-87 -2- Staff Comments As a special use in the R5 zoning district, the proposed residential treatment facility is to meet the Standards for a Special Use Permit contained in Section 35- 220.2 (attached) . The Commission is probably aware, however, that the State has, for the most part, pre-empted regulation of such group homes and that there is very little, or no ability on the part of the City to deny the proposed use. The State has determined through its policies and statutes that residential treatment facilities provide a necessary service to the community. The remodeling plans proposed by this facility meet the requirements of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance in terms of space provided per resident. Standard (a) would, therefore, appear to be met. There will no doubt be allegations by those who live in the neighborhood that property values will decline as a result of the group home locating within the neighborhood. However, the City Assessor has detected no such decline in property values in other neighborhoods surrounding existing residential facilities in the City. In the past ten years, there have been no formal complaints lodged against any of the group homes in the City. There has been a complaint lodged against Welcome Community home at a public hearing in 1984 by the owner of an ada jcent four plex alleging lack of supervision. The degree of supervision at the proposed residential treatment facility seems adequate. Staff do not expect a decline in property values in the neighborhood as a result of the proposed residential treatment facility. The area around the proposed facility is already developed. Therefore, it will not impede normal and orderly development of surrounding land. Finally, traffic should not be a problem with the proposed facility since none of the residents will have cars (there will be a van parked at the premises for transportation) . The parking lot should be widened to allow 90 degree parking stalls for at least 17 cars and appropriate screening should be provided where this parcel abuts RI zoned land on the south. Thus, the special use standards appear to be met in this case. What appears to be the most compelling aspect of this proposal is not the standards for special use permit or how the City might view this type facility under its Zoning Ordinance, but rather its relationship to State legislation and court precedents where cities have tried to impose local control or denied permits to operate such facilities in residential zoning districts. This community has had first hand knowledge of this relationship as it relates to the City's attempt to deny a similar facility from locating at 4408 69th Avenue North in 1983• That proposal involved Northwest Residence's plan to operate a residential treatment facility for 18 to 20 mentally ill persons. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of City Council Resolution No. 83-89 stating the reasons for that denial. The City's position was upheld in a District Court Action, but upon appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, that decision was reversed. Generally, the Court concluded that Northwest Residence met applicable requirements of City Ordinance; that the City did not have the authority to establish stricter standards for the mentally ill since special care of the mentally ill has been made a matter of State concern; and the State has preempted local regulations in this field. The Court went on to say that local regulations cannot prohibit what the State expressly permits. That ruling was appealed by the City to the Minnesota Supreme Court which denied our petition for review letting the Appeals Court ruling stand. 7-16-87 -3- Generally speaking, the State policy is that municipal zoning ordinances should not be used to exclude these people from the benefits of normal residential surroundings. The City's zoning ordinance and provisions relating to group care facilities are the same today as they were in 1983 where the Northwest Residence proposal was before the City and the Court. This facility (Kelly House) is similar in that it is a residential care facility, it is licensed by the State and, I believe, for our purposes the same as Northwest Residence. I am certain that some will argue with the logic, but I believe the conclusion would be the same. We have received a number of comments and inquiries regarding this proposal. As mentioned previously in the report, an informational meeting was held at Northport School on July 8th with approximately 140 people attending. The neighborhood, it is fair to say, is opposed to the relocation and has expressed safety concerns and fears, as well as concern that this facility will have a negative effect on property values. Other points of interest and concern have been raised as well, and I'm certain, will also be expressed during the public hearing. At the time this report was prepared, our office had received two letters opposing this application. One was from K.E. and A J. Janeksela, 5312 Northport Drive, the other from Bernard Ackerson, 3713 53rd Avenue North. These letters are attached for the Commission's review. The Planning Commission may wish to table this application following a public hearing. Staff do not recommend tabling for the sake of tabling. However, if it is felt that greater public input is needed or more information must be obtained or responded to, a tabling would be appropriate. Any action recommending approval should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official and the State Building Codes Division with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. I i 3• A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits. 4. The site plan shall be amended prior to consideration by the City Council to indicate the following: a) A 15' wide greenstrip measured from the property line on 53rd Avenue North. b) A 42' wide parking lot with at least fifteen (15) 90 degree parking stalls and bounded by B612 curb and gutter. i c) A minimum 4' high screening device adjacent to the residence to the south. 7-16-87 -4- I* The premises shall continue to be licensed under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance and shall be subject to the occupancy provisions therein. 6. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 7. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8. Existing tenants shall receive a minimum of 30 days notice prior to the date they are expected to vacate the premises. 9. There shall be a minimum of one staff person on the premises at all times. 10. A copy of the current State Board and Lodge License shall be kept on file with the City. 11. The special use permit shall be reviewed within one year of the date of issuance to examine the history, if any, of complaints or police actions relating to the facility. 12. Approval acknowledges the ability of the applicant to provide up to 20 parking spaces on site meeting the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City whereby the applicant agrees to provide at least 20 parking spaces on site upon a determination by the City that the parking spaces are needed. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property. 13. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 1 I 7-16-87 -5- i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87013 Applicant: David Brandvold Location: 5819 Bryant Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at 5819 Bryant Avenue North. The land in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the east by Bryant Avenue North and on the south, west, and north by single-family homes. The purpose of the subdivision is to create a new buildable lot north of the residence at 5819 Bryant Avenue North. The existing lot is legally described as Lot 36, Lyndale Riverside Acres. The proposed legal description is Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Jody's Second Addition. The existing lot is quite large at 147.72' by 165.85' for a total 24, 502 sq. ft. The lot is to be divided as follows: Lot Type Width Req'd Depth Req'd. Area Required 1 Interior 75' 75' 165.97' 110' 12,442 sq. ft. 9,500 sq. ft. 2 it 72.72' 75' 165.85' 110' 12,060 sq. ft. 9,500 sq. ft. There is a lot width variance requested on Lot 2 of the proposed plat (see Application No. 87014) to allow an interior RI lot with a width of less than 75' . There is also an existing detached garage and driveway which encroach on to the proposed Lot 2. The garage will have to be relocated onto Lot 1 with a minimum 3' side yard setback, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, prior to release of the final plat for filing at the County. No easements, either existing or proposed are shown on the preliminary plat. The new lot does have an existing water service stubbed in to the property line. The Engineering Department's records also show a sanitary sewer stub at the north end of the property. Both extra services have been paid for. If the variance application is approved for this subdivision, we recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing garage shall be relocated with atleast a 3' side yard setback onto Lot 1 prior to release of the final plat for filing. 7-16-87 i i I 4 i f Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 87014 Applicant: David Brandvold Location: 5819 Bryant Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to subdivide the lot at 5819 Bryant Avenue North into two lots including a lot with a width of only 72.72' rather than the 75' required by ordinance. The lot in question is zoned Rl and is bounded by Bryant Avenue North on the east, and by single-family homes on the south, west and north. The application is subject to the standards contained in Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance and those contained in Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance (both attached) The applicant has submitted no written arguments addressing these standards. The precedent for this type of variance is considerable, however. In general,- lot variances have been granted where two out of three lot requirements (width, depth, and area) are met and the request is "reasonable and the variance is minimized." Staff feel that this request is indeed reasonable. The extra depth to the lot makes the area more than adequate for a single-family lot. Also, the presence of utility stubs that have already been paid for argues persuasively for the right of the property owner to have a second lot from his property. The applicant has also minimized the variance by proposing one lot of 75' width and another at 72.721 . Finally, there appears to be no detriment to surrounding property since the proposed lot is as large as a standard single-family lot. It should be noted that many of the lots on this block are oversized, but are not as large as the lot being split in this case. Therefore, in granting the requested variance, we do not believe a precedent is established to grant other lot variances on this block. Property owners on this block may feel that a larger lot size should be required because of the large lots on the block. However, as with the lot area variance for Steve Cook, staff do not feel that a higher standards may be applied for this particular block. The standard we recommend is that for the whole community, not for a particular block. In conclusion, we recommend approval of the variance request on the basis of the following: 1. The proposed lot has extra depth which produces ample lot area. 2. Extra water and sewer laterals have been extended to the property and have been paid for. 3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. 5. The extent of the variance has been minimized by creating one lot of 75' width and another of 72.721 . 6. The property shall be platted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 7. An existing detached garage shall be relocated onto the proposed Lot 1 with a minimum side yard setback of 3' . 7-16-87 i I I t �'r t